v8 head questions...

Valve stem seals ?

Steve

They were flat, not formed like the valve stem seals ive seen on everything else, and just floated about on the shaft of the valve rather than sitting at the bottom.

They were basically just standard fibre/rubber washers shoved over the valve?.

My 3.5 didnt have them on, and i cant see em on the old heads Lee has given me.

--

The 101 Forward Control Club and Register

yep, found one on one valve on one of the heads on mine. Found another in the sump when I stripped the engine apart, but no others

The engine I have has been re ringed recently, I would guess in the last 5,000 miles, as there are still very obvious honing marks and no ridge on the cylinder, but they didn't fit new shells when they did it. The shells have lots of wear on them..... Whoever did the job believed in instant gasket, as every bottom end seal had been smeared in the stuff, or replaced completely. They had also used instant gasket when they fitted the head gaskets..... Some people!!!!

The old tappets had 3 seized inners...... no wonder the damn things rattled!

Went to order the new parts today, and started by verifying the engine number. Good job I did. The V5 lists the vehicle as a "Ranger Rover

3.9 EFi", but the engine number is a 25D, so either it left the factory with a 3.5, or some one replaced it at a later date. V5 and engine number match, and it is the right month of build to be a "bitza" if there were no 3.9's available. Ho hum

The cam was a bit too round, with definite flat spots, so it now has a

3.9 cam going into it.

-- "For those who are missing Blair - aim more carefully."

To reply direct rot13 me

bURRt the 101 Camper

200TDi Disco with rotten floor 200 TDi DIsco, "the offroader" 1976 S3 Lightweight

The 3.5 doesnt have them. Not sure wether to buy and refit some or not

- where is badger when you need him? ;)

Why would you re-ring it and not do the shells too? The shells are much cheaper than the rings! some wierd people about! My engine seems to have been apart at some point (both the block and heads have been labelled as '3.9' in paint and it was under a layer of dirt - but i cant tell why its been apart. Shells on mine were fairly tired.

Thats a bit of a bastard - so your 3.9 is only really a 3.5? are you still gonna fit it or carry on looking? If you are gonna stick with the 3.5 I'd try and do something to it to give it more power. Change the pistons and skim stuff to increase the compressino or similar.

I was worried about getting the right engine. Checked when i bought it. mine is numbered as a 36D which makes it a 3.9 auto which is right and its the right age for what it was supposed to have come out of.

the cam in my 3.9 looks fine (but replacing it anyway). I thought it was only the 3.5 cams which rounded off badly (the one in my 101 has)

- which would tie in with yours being a 3.5

How are you getting on? I'm about to start reassembly of the new engine tommorrow provided my new tools come, then might lift the old engine out over the weekend.

--

The 101 Forward Control Club and Register

I'm here.

ALL engines have them, even early 3.5's. They normally go hard, break up and get flushed out at oil changes, hence why people think they weren't there at all. Early type are like a rubber washer, fitted only on the inlet valves. Don't fit to exhaust valves unless replacing valves for later carbon-break type as the early exhaust valve stems need the lubrication. late type are proper push-on lip-type oil seals, different guides to allow fitment and different exhaust valves (material).

Fit 8 washer-type, one on each inlet valve.

Badger.

3.5 efi does have significantly more power than the original 101 engine, so shouldn't be too much of a problem. Heads and block have been refaced to increase the compression slightly.

had I been just looking for an engine that's what I would have done, but given that the V5 also stated 3.9 i felt fairly sure....

Currently lapping the valves in. Rest of the parts should be here either today or tomorrow, so will hopefully finish the build up over the weekend or early next week. Fortunately SWMBO has been off work sick so I haven't had to do baby sitting duty, hence why I'm doing the engine now, even though I wont be fitting it, along with the auto, until October half term when the season finishes. It's a damn sight easier for Dawn to look after Harry while I get oily, rather than having to worry about cleaning myself up every time he needs a bottle, bum change, cuddle, etc!! Oil on my clothes she can cope with, oil on Harry's may be the final straw!!

-- "For those who are missing Blair - aim more carefully."

To reply direct rot13 me

bURRt the 101 Camper

200TDi Disco with rotten floor 200 TDi DIsco, "the offroader" 1976 S3 Lightweight

In message , Badger writes

Mine didn't have any signs of them (RR 1975) and nor did a P6, a 1973, a

1978 and about four others of P6/early 70's vintage I've stripped. Neither the original RR parts book for 1975 or the parts manual for the 101 lists valve stem seals. Curiously a 1989 parts manual for the Range Rover shows ERC7865 inlet seals fitted for all 3.5 engines even early ones ... makes me wonder whether they were a later 'upgrade' for early units rather than original fitment?

I fitted them anyway but I don't know if they make any difference as the bus never used oil anyway ...

hmm. i didnt fit them on the 3.5 and that hasnt used any oil in the past 1000 miles. I will see if i manage to find the tuits to drive up to Richards and buy some before i get to the head refitting point (probably monday at the earliest judging from how my timetables always seem to slip!)

--

The 101 Forward Control Club and Register